Another State Court Says Speedy Fourth Amendment Violations Are Still Just Fourth Amendment Violations


Another court has handed down a decision that upholds the standard set by the Supreme Court in the Rodriguez decision. That standard is pretty cut and dry: any Constitutional violation is still a Constitutional violation — whether it lasts 30 seconds or ten minutes. In the context of a traffic stop, any actions taken not supported by reasonable suspicion — like running a drug dog around the vehicle or spending time begging for consent for a search — are not allowed under the Fourth Amendment.

It was assumed law enforcement would just search for ways to speed up these unrelated activities so that traffic stops wouldn’t be “unreasonably prolonged.” The Supreme Court gave no guidance on what constituted an unreasonably lengthy traffic stop. Scott Greenfield theorized officers would read this decision to mean they could still do all the things they wanted to do, just so long as the stop ended whenever the “objective” — usually the delivery of a citation — was complete.

But then, there is the takeaway. Have the dog there before you hand over the ticket and you get a sniff, no Constitution allowed. Don’t rush the ticket, because nobody knows how long it does, or should, take to complete the core mission. And if the dog happens to show before it’s done, boom, lawful.

Ask those Frisbee questions before you hand over the paperwork. Seek consent while you still have the driver’s license in hand. Smell the car for that “pungent” odor, peer knowingly for that furtive gesture, or stare carefully for those watery and lethargic eyes, before you hand over the papers.

This theory seems have been proven correct. Law enforcement officers have drawn the wrong conclusion from the Rodriguez decision. That’s probably to be expected, as law enforcement really loves the relaxed Constitutional guidelines surrounding traffic stops. The upside is that courts aren’t allowing them to get away with it.

A recent decision covered here found that there was no minimum amount of time needed to violate the Constitution. It was the violation that mattered, not the length of time it took to violate it. In the course of a traffic stop, a drug dog was deployed. That it occurred simultaneously with the normal traffic stop paperwork made no difference. The evidence was suppressed by the court, relying on the Rodriguez decision.

The Idaho Supreme Court has reached the same conclusion in another case — one that also involved a speedily-deployed drug dog. In this case, the traffic stop lasted over twenty minutes, but the drug dog’s involvement was less than three minutes of that total. Much like the earlier decision, the slight delay isn’t the deciding factor. The “unnecessary” part of the “prolongment” is. (h/t

From the opinion [PDF]:

Deputy Bryce Moore (“Deputy Moore”) arrived at the scene with his drug detection dog (“Hash*”) at approximately 10:38 a.m., ten minutes after he was called and nineteen minutes after the stop was initiated. At that time, Officer Bridges stopped writing the citation and running the warrant checks. Deputy Moore then approached Mrs. Linze and asked for consent to search her vehicle. When she refused consent, Deputy Moore walked Hash around the exterior of the vehicle. Hash gave a positive alert at the front of the vehicle. At trial, the State estimated, based on speaking with Officer Bridges, that the time from Deputy Moore’s arrival to Hash’s alert was two and a half minutes. The State conceded that during those two and a half minutes, Officer Bridges had stopped pursuing the original purpose of the stop and was instead serving a “backup function” to Deputy Moore.

*[I know, right?]

The State’s concession matters. That’s what ultimately undoes its bid to prevent suppression of the evidence. Two and half minutes is more than enough time to violate the Fourth Amendment.

Here, we have a case in which a police officer had probable cause because Mrs. Linze was driving with a cracked windshield, which constitutes a traffic violation. It follows that the initial seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The pertinent question before this Court is whether or not the seizure remained reasonable under the Fourth Amendment once Officer Bridges abandoned the purpose of the seizure in order to aid in a search for contraband. We hold that it did not.

The State’s argument follows Greenfield’s projection: we can violate the Fourth Amendment as long as it happens within a reasonable amount of time.

The State suggests that Rodriguez allows a seizing officer to deviate from the purpose of a traffic stop up until the time at which the stop should have been reasonably completed. In other words, for each traffic stop there is an objective amount of time within which that stop should reasonably be completed and any unrelated action taken by an officer within that amount of time does not violate the seized parties’ Fourth Amendment rights.

The defense’s interpretation more accurately portrays the Supreme Court’s findings in Rodriguez.

Conversely, Mr. Linze reasons that a deviation from the original purpose of a traffic stop will inevitably lengthen the time needed to complete the original purpose of the seizure, and, accordingly, will result in a stop that “exceed[s] the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made.” Under Mr. Linze’s suggested interpretation, the timing of an officer’s departure from the original purpose of the seizure is irrelevant, it only matters that the officer departed from that purpose.

Mr. Linze wins.

We hold that Mr. Linze’s interpretation of Rodriguez is correct. The United States Supreme Court has plainly established that a traffic stop is a seizure, but it is not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment so long as there is a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is being driven contrary to traffic laws. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981). The stop remains a reasonable seizure while the officer diligently pursues the purpose of the stop, to which that reasonable suspicion is related. However, should the officer abandon the purpose of the stop, the officer no longer has that original reasonable suspicion supporting his actions. Indeed, when an officer abandons his or her original purpose, the officer has for all intents and purposes initiated a new seizure with a new purpose; one which requires its own reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. This new seizure cannot piggy-back on the reasonableness of the original seizure.

Once again, law enforcement engages in its own, unsupported interpretation of the Rodriguez decision. And once again, a state court tells it to work on its reading comprehension skills.

Then there’s this bit of inadvertent hilarity, provided by one of the officers on the scene to shore up the state’s “not unreasonably prolonged” arguments. The gist of it is: I’m not killing time to wait for drug dogs. I’m just kind of terrible at traffic stops.

At the hearing, Officer Bridges testified that he did not delay the traffic stop while waiting for the K–9 Unit to arrive. He testified that the stop took twenty minutes because: “I was thorough. On warrant checks I ran both through the computer. And my handwriting is very sloppy, so I take my time when I write my tickets. . . . If I would have finished early, I would have called off the canine.”

That last part is literally unbelievable. I would not hesitate to bet real money that Officer Bridges has never “called off a canine” in his career as a law enforcement officer. Only the rarest of law enforcement officers would turn down a chance to run a K-9 around a stopped vehicle. The problem now is the Supreme Court says they can no longer do it just because.

Filed Under: ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Another State Court Says Speedy Fourth Amendment Violations Are Still Just Fourth Amendment Violations”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
DB (profile) says:

Reasonable time for a ticketed traffic stop?

I’ve seen “ticket mill” traffic stops, with one police officer standing in the middle of the lane, waving over cars, and several others writing tickets. They are done in under 5 minutes.

To confirm my memory, I did a quick search. That brought up a story from Tigard OR where the police department credited an automated ticket printing system dropped their average ticket writing time from 6 minutes to 3 minutes.

Taking 19+ minutes to not quite finish issuing a citation is clearly prolonging the stop.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: That pesky Constitution

Police work has always been easy in a police state.

That’s why they “don’t have time for this constitutional bulls**t”.

“If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier… as long as I’m the dictator. Hehehe.” — George W Bush

. . . and other sources, just google it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: That pesky Constitution

Obama acted like a Dictator unlike Bush. Obama didn’t get his way in Congress, No problem, He has a Pen & a Phone and can just do whatever he wants. At least he tried, and failed a number of times as he lost in COURT!!!

Just listen to him. He sounds like a Dictator!!! What he’s saying is screw congress because he can’t get his way!!! It’s not how our government works. That’s how it works in other country’s with a Dictator and the congress with no power, just for show.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: That pesky Constitution

It’s not about Obama or Bush. Bush’s dictator comment would mean the same thing if Obama had said it. The only difference is that Obama is smart enough not to say it in public.

But the truth of it remains no matter who said it. It REALLY WOULD be easier in a dictatorship. Just ask any dictator. From either political party. They all want that power.

If you think one party is substantially better than the other, then you have been conned. Just see the two recent presidential candidates who were our choices.

ImprecisionBass (profile) says:

Re: Mr. or Mrs.?

Ben – According to the court document included at the bottom of the article, Mrs. Linze was the driver and person who refused the officer’s request to search the vehicle. Mr. Linze was the passenger who was subsequently arrested for having methamphetamine on him, and was the defendant in the case that was appealed to the high court. In the article alone, this was not clearly explained, so your confusion is understandable.

DannyB (profile) says:

It if is done quickly it's not a violation

Viewer Discretion Advised

Suppose a police officer claims he / she was raped. The defendant could prove that it’s not a rape because it only took 30 seconds instead of 10 minutes, because the defendant cannot hold it longer than 30 seconds. This argument is supported by the very words the police use in court. So it should be equally persuasive. A violation that takes a short time is not a violation.

That One Guy (profile) says:

"Oh, well that argument doesn't apply to anyone without a badge of course."

So if they’re willing to argue that so long as it’s a short violation of rights then that makes it acceptable, that means they’re willing to apply that logic elsewhere, right?

"Yes I was speeding, but I was only doing so for a few minutes, so that makes it okay."

"Yes I was trespassing when I jumped the fence of the lot behind the police station to take a shortcut, but it only took me a couple of minutes to cross it to the other side, so it’s perfectly legal."

"Sure I was refusing to comply with police orders when they were trying to arrest me, but I only did so for a short while so that means it’s not a crime."

Anyone think they’d buy that excuse from anyone but themselves?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

Rekrul says:

If I understood the story correctly, the court sided with the victim only because the officer who stopped her, stopped working on the ticket and briefly assisted the other cop in running the drug dog around the car.

Would this have turned out the same way if he had continued to slowly write the ticket while the other one used the dog?

Personally, I would think that even using a dog to sniff the car would need to be backed up by probably cause, which a cracked windshield is not, however if it was being done in parallel to the ticket and the ticket writing wasn’t delayed (yeah, I know…) to allow for the sniff test, would the court still have considered it a violation?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...